Downloads · 30 days
122
18% of all-time downloads
mhndayesh/gemma-4-E2B-netsec-expert-GGUF
gemma-4-E2B-netsec-expert-GGUF is a text generation model from mhndayesh. Use it when you need the model to write or continue text. It is set up for llama.cpp. The card lists the license as gemma.
⚙️ Recommended runtime settings — gemma-native sampling temperature 1.0, topk 64, topp 0.95, minp 0.01 (the minp 0.01 floor prevents the reasoning-loop empty-answer issue), context length ≥ 16k (32k recommended), and…
Downloads · 30 days
122
18% of all-time downloads
All-time downloads
666
Public
Repo size
6.9 GB
Likes
1
Public
Click a slice to open those files.
.gguf3.4 GB · 100%
From the Hugging Face model README
⚙️ Recommended runtime settings — gemma-native sampling
temperature 1.0, top_k 64, top_p 0.95, min_p 0.01(themin_p 0.01floor prevents the reasoning-loop empty-answer issue), context length ≥ 16k (32k recommended), and a generousmax_tokenswhen running with thinking on. The Gemma-4 thinking path needs--jinja.
A ~2B edge model (gemma-4-E2B-it) with a Security & Networking FactBank baked into its chat-template.
It answers correctly about post-cutoff / breaking-change APIs in 7 security & networking libraries — not by
fine-tuning, but by carrying a searchable bank of landmine facts that fires inside llama.cpp at
inference time. Weights untouched; no external RAG. Small enough to run on a laptop.
This is the most striking result of the set: a 2B model gains the most from the bank — it knows the least, so the bank fills the most gaps.
🔗 Full project — all experts, methodology, per-question transcripts, and benchmarks: github.com/mhndayesh/experts-models
114 curated landmine facts (post-cutoff · reverses-a-trained-habit · silent-failure) across: cryptography · OpenSSL 3 · paramiko 3 · urllib3 2 · volatility3 · yara-x · eBPF (BCC→libbpf).
| library | facts | what it is / the churn |
|---|---|---|
openssl (3) | 31 | OpenSSL 3 — the RSA_new→EVP_PKEY_new provider-API rewrite, FIPS_mode→EVP_default_properties_is_fips_enabled |
cryptography | 20 | Python crypto — hazmat API moves, TripleDES→hazmat.decrepit |
ebpf | 16 | eBPF from Python — the BCC→libbpf shift |
paramiko (3) | 16 | SSH library — v3 key/algorithm removals |
urllib3 (2) | 14 | HTTP client — the v2 breaking changes |
yara-x | 9 | YARA rewritten in Rust — rule/API differences (base64, wildcards) |
volatility3 | 8 | memory forensics — the v2→v3 rewrite (PluginInterface+TreeGrid+run) |
Each library's facts were extracted from its migration guide / changelog (source targeting is the whole game — a migration guide, not release-note noise), then quote-verified against the source line:
Full provenance (the mined source docs themselves) lives in the repo under
v2/extractor/experts/security-networking/sources/.
Same 48 landmine questions, base vs. this baked model, identical prompts (the bank injects in-engine):
| set | base e2b | this model | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easy (30 single-API) | 12/30 | 20/30 | +8 |
| Hard (18 multi-fact / silent-failure) | 7/18 | 12/18 | +5 |
| Total (48) | 19/48 (39.6%) | 32/48 (66.7%) | +13, 1 regression |
+27 points — the biggest lift of the 2B/12B/26B curve (e2b 39.6→66.7% · 12B 56.2→81.2% · 26B 77.1→93.8%):
raw lift shrinks with model size, so the edge model benefits most. Full methodology, transcripts, caveats:
github.com/mhndayesh/experts-models →
v2/extractor/experts/security-networking/.
The bank lives in the chat-template, so retrieval needs it applied — run on llama.cpp:
llama-server -m gemma-4-E2B-netsec-expert-Q4_K_M.gguf --jinja --port 8080 --ctx-size 8192
Query normally (same prompt as the base; the bank fires automatically for covered topics). Sampling —
Gemma-native: temperature 1.0, top_k 64, top_p 0.95, min_p 0.01 (the min_p floor prevents
reasoning-loop empty answers). For best accuracy send chat_template_kwargs={"enable_thinking": true} with an
authority system prompt (tell the model the looked-up facts are verified and supersede its training) — a
reasoning model otherwise reverts an injected fact to its trained prior. Don't quantize the KV cache on a
model this small.
RSA_new) also opens the tab; a wholly unrelated phrasing may still miss.The same FactBank approach on a different, code-execution benchmark: a local 12B + bank next to the published GitChameleon 2.0 leaderboard.
| model | pass@1 (greedy) | + RAG |
|---|---|---|
| o1 / Gemini 2.5 Pro / GPT-4o / Claude 3.7 / GPT-4.1 | 51.2 / 50.0 / 49.1 / 48.8 / 48.5 | — / 56.7 / — / 56.1 / 58.5 |
| Claude 4 Sonnet (best RAG) | — | 59.4 |
| gemma-4-12B + FactBank (thinking-off → two-pass) | 44.2 → 54.2 | — |
| gemma-4-12B base | 37.8 | — |
⚠️ Not apples-to-apples — the container harness was NOT run. Frontier = the official 328-problem run in pinned Docker containers (arXiv 2507.12367). FactBank rows = a local, non-Docker run over the 249 problems that built (hand-verified, some 3.7→3.9 remapped, no RAG). Base-vs-baked is internally fair; the frontier column is a different measurement — "what neighborhood," not a ranking. Details: LEADERBOARD-COMPARISON.md.
The write-ups behind this project (PDFs, rendered on GitHub): Research Report · Idea · Technical · Verdict · Evidence Ledger
lmstudio-community/gemma-4-E2B-it-GGUF (Q4_K_M). This model = that GGUF with
tokenizer.chat_template rewritten to embed an inverted-index retriever + the bank (factbank.version 0.4.0).
e2b ships a different gemma-4 template revision than 12B/26B, so it required its own re-anchoring (see the repo).license: gemma) — a gemma-4 derivative. The fact bank is from
the FactBank project (repo LICENSE); mined sources keep their own licenses.